tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post9149900646377872927..comments2018-03-15T04:34:37.321-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Regarding Penn Jillette's AtheismAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-40832303215036369432012-01-21T21:07:26.988-07:002012-01-21T21:07:26.988-07:00Oh yes, I am familiar with the proper understandin...Oh yes, I am familiar with the proper understanding of agnosticism. But it is popular for people who don&#39;t believe either way because they are unconvinced to say that they are agnostic, and so I was applying that connotation of the word. Properly, these people should say that they are ambiguous about the existence of God. <br /><br />And being an agnostic a/theist would require one to admit as a part of one&#39;s world-view that they are irrational: they believe without possessing the rational means to do so. <br /><br />Gnosticism is not considered the opposite of agnosticism. Try the wikipedia page...it seems like a cross between traditional theism and pantheism. <br /><br />If somebody believe some days and not some other days, then that isn&#39;t simultaneous atheism and theism. It&#39;s just varying beliefs. Re-read my post again, and you&#39;ll see that it hinges on the definition rejected by Fyfe of atheism == lacking belief. This definition I reject on the grounds that it is wrong over history and that it produces and absurdity of simultaneous atheism and theism. It also does nothing, as one would then return to discussing the merits of one system over the other.nokluhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06754678459803836135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-30189283985370789672012-01-21T16:29:25.626-07:002012-01-21T16:29:25.626-07:00Noklu, I&#39;m fairly sure that agnostic does not ...Noklu, I&#39;m fairly sure that agnostic does not represent the middle ground. It refers to a separate question - whether it is possible to know. In actual usage, I&#39;m not sure how many people use it to exclude both theism and atheism, but I know a lot of people who tack gnostic/agnostic onto their theism/atheism. (Although I think Gnostic is something specific and different, and I don&#39;t know what the appropriate term is for believing we can know.)<br /><br />Whether one can simultaneously be an atheist and a theist is an interesting question, and one that might not be so absurd as might seem. I&#39;m going to be thinking that one over for some time. Is it like asking if plaid can be simultaneously black and white? Well, probably not. What about a person who some days actively believes and some days actively disbelieves?Emu Samhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05352556221263050952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-77694037855428572162012-01-20T16:13:28.421-07:002012-01-20T16:13:28.421-07:00Also, if one makes the case that atheism includes ...Also, if one makes the case that atheism includes people who lack belief in God, then a theist could argue that theism includes people who lack disbelief in God. There is no reason to allow one and not the other, and so it allows for people who lack both to simultaneously be an atheist and a theist, which is quite absurd and leaves no room for agnosticism at all.nokluhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06754678459803836135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-39464963742909403132012-01-20T00:27:44.948-07:002012-01-20T00:27:44.948-07:00I suppose you might be interested to know that a p...I suppose you might be interested to know that a professional theologian/philosopher has responded to and critiqued some of your claims in this post. Here: http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/RF_podcast/The-Proper-Definition-of-Atheism.mp3 <br /><br />It only refers to your post in about the first third, just after a critique of Penn.nokluhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06754678459803836135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-80524256710083296422011-08-26T11:14:04.451-06:002011-08-26T11:14:04.451-06:00I must, in one small part, disagree with you here....I must, in one small part, disagree with you here. I think this is a very minor sub-discussion of your whole post so don&#39;t take it as an attack on your post - it&#39;s just musing on this topic. I like this series of posts.<br /><br />The question is on the definition of atheism.<br /><br />The Oxford English Dictionary defines atheism as: <b><i>disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god</i></b> and disbelief as: <b><i>refusal or reluctance to believe, doubt about the truth of</i></b><br /><br />But this is compatible with the usage you are rejecting.<br /><br />NOTE: this is DISBELIEF, not mere lack of belief. Babies and Rocks are reasonably excluded. although when most people say &quot;I lack belief in a God&quot;, they mean a state of disbelief and just aren&#39;t being precise. This suffices for informal discussions, it&#39;s only when people get pedantic that it matters.<br /><br />Obviously, you can define it however you wish - but you cannot say that this definition is invalid when it is in fairly common usage AND clearly defined in a reliable and authoritative dictionary (dictionaries don&#39;t define language, usage does - but what I mean here is that OED tends to make fairly reliable and conservative claims about language usage and it&#39;s back up with references).<br /><br />And I don&#39;t think this definition is unique to British English, the disbelief definition is in American English dictionaries as well. Merriam-Webster online: 2a a disbelief in the existence of deity 2b the doctrine that there is no deity<br /><br />So even there your definition has only the second listing (1 is archaic : ungodliness, wickedness).Dark Starhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04356850749159919331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-46675682591913599492011-08-22T15:04:07.901-06:002011-08-22T15:04:07.901-06:00Camels With Hammers
Rocks lack belief. An individ...<b>Camels With Hammers</b><br /><br />Rocks lack belief. An individual in a permanent vegetative state such that they cannot even comprehend the question lacks belief. In American English, the term &quot;atheist&quot; does not apply to either of these.<br /><br />I have found that people who say they &quot;lack belief&quot; as a way of saying they are typically using this as a point of intellectual laziness. &quot;Because my position is that I &quot;lack belief,&quot; I don&#39;t have to offer any arguments for my position. I don&#39;t have to intellectually engage the relevant material. &#39;Lack of belief&#39; requires no justification - no effort on my part.&quot;<br /><br />It is, then, very much like any faith position in that it is disconnected from any rules for evidence. A person can &quot;lack belief in God&quot; without evidence and without needing to say anything in defense of that position.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-35670844164621397292011-08-22T13:42:53.978-06:002011-08-22T13:42:53.978-06:00I agree with you that we can know nearly certainly...I agree with you that we can know nearly certainly that a personal God (or all the personal gods claimed to be revealed by the existing religoins) does not exist. I think that constitutes enough to say that we know that there is no God. <br /><br />But that does not mean that other atheists don&#39;t simply &quot;lack belief&quot;. There could be some who have a different view and think that their confidence does not rise to the level where they are comfortable making a positive metaphysical assertion that there is no personal deity. For someone like that to say they are an agnostic atheist (someone who thinks that they cannot know and that the morally and epistemically appropriate response in that situation is to refrain from belief) is fine with me. They just have a different epistemology than I do. Who cares if the general public finds the distinction arcane. They are entitled to be accurate. And if they are accurate they will draw people who find their position more sensible than mine and yours but who otherwise might have thought they couldn&#39;t be atheists because they are not as &quot;extreme&quot; as you and I are.<br /><br />I also am glad that the crew who say they just &quot;lack belief&quot; are calling themselves atheists and not just calling themselves agnostics simpliciter. It is valuable that they are at least willing to identify as atheists, which is the most accurate label for them and which does not represent an actual contrast with agnosticism even though it&#39;s traditionally been painted as such. Agnosticism and atheism are just answers to totally different questions, not alternative answers to the same question.Camels With Hammershttp://freethoughtblogs.com/camelswithhammersnoreply@blogger.com